BEST 'ERGO' ?

[bewick]

Bewick:

gardner180:
By the way Dennis I would love to see the “Brady spotters list” on here as I never had a full list. I do recall 852C now you mention it. I was only 11 in 1977, but brady’s yard was fascinating for me then, with everything for pre motorway beavers like Jeo756 Thro Atkis ( my favourites were 8LXB SEO 479 and 629M) right up to the latest Scania 111s, the noise of which as they pulled away “fully” loaded on night trunk from the strawberry lights will stay with me forever. I always thought of the late 70s as being the peak of the uk haulage industry, quite a few entries on this site seem to support that.

The list is all hand written by Chris Swindlehurst from Milnthorpe who also has exstensive detail of the Bewick fleet,I can’t put it on the site but if you have any questions I’ll be glad to have a look for you.The list runs up the mid 70’s when Barrow Borough became part of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Dennis.

This is the only shot of a Brady Ergo I can find 180,and it is a much later reg. and probably one of the last Leylands Brady got prior to moving to Atkinsons and then Scanias.Cheers Dennis.

[bewick]

cattle wagon man:

Bewick:

cattle wagon man:
Here is a model I made of M.E. Saunders & Sons` Leyland Retriever, RTD 123 C.

Cheers, cattle wagon man.

They probably got this Retreiver from Hudsons via Tony Bingley CWM,Bradys were Leyland dealers in their own right so could cut out the middle man so to speak! Cheers Dennis.

I rather think that back in 1965 , that Tony Bingley was a mechanic at Hudsons, and he graduated to being a Salesman a couple of years later. George Mills , alongside Raymond Bowman, was Hudsons Salesman during part of the 1960`s,
prior to leaving to work directly for Leyland Motors around 1966/7.
Hell,…I was only in my early teens then, Dennis !!

Cheers, cattle wagon man.

Look CWM,I don’t particularly mind the mention of Raymond or Tony,but the mention of that other ■■■■■ name grates on me !! He was responsible for the eventual demise of Scotts of Penrith and certainly the main reason for me stopping buying new Atkis from them,I got my first three from them(when Ian Fowler was manager) then the next dozen or so,as well as secondhand ones from other sources.That individual was a nasty little jumped up ■■■■ in my book,others may have an entirely different opinion however !! Cheers Dennis.

[stanfield]

Not a lot mentioned about the Albion Reiver egro.This E reg was the first of many to enter the Biesty tipper fleet and then for some reason he reverted back to the LAD cabs on J reg plates all purchased at the time from Gilbraith Commercials at Accrington.

[retired_old_fart]

When I worked at BRS, Forest of Dean, we only had one Ergo, a D-reg 32-tonner driven by Dennis Criddle. I never found out why this solitary Leyland was placed at our depot by the powers-that-be in Cardiff but Den thought it was the dog’s after coming from a Mk5 Mandator. We took no more new lorries until the first batch of Big Js came in, I think, 1968.

[lilladan]

First Ergos 1965 very few Beaver, Badger, Mercury, Mandators, Cplate in UK left hand drive big sleeper available for export fromstart ,Octipus, Mammoth ect later, Leyland SUPER Comet Ergo mid 1966 , ALL ALBION ERGO S TILT ,Only NON TILT ergo was LEYLAND COMET 1968 , Super Comet went500system wid high kabine (as Lynx) but only 401 motor not fixed head , in Danmark we had special models Ergo not sold in UK as well as normal models , bid double sleeper Beaver was power for truck trailer runs to Finland , England , Germany ,mmm, Left hand drive and sleeper as LAD models we had . used Normal Super Comets short kabine wid Trailer as you saydrawbar outfit not to inquire on total weights ,when truck and trailer FULL UP you are loaded , so go and use plenty of gears , slangen Bunk not so big in F86 against Beaver but F86 like car only better ,LIGHTER CONTROLS THAN 60S VOLVO 144 CAR.

[lilladan]

Albion Ergo is SUPER REIVER 19 or 20 model, even later LAD was SUPER REIVER ( any wid 0.400 motor ) SUPER

[valkyrie]

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 2. Page 6.TRUCKNETUK.

[ZB] Anorak » Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:16 pm

Newmercman wrote:The only difference between an Ergo cab and a 60s yank tank is the height of the cab relative to the chassis, a comparable day cab yank has, as Saviem says, a pitiful BBC measurement, so much so that half of today’s drivers wouldn’t fit through the door

As usual Carryfast, bless him, is away in his little fantasy world.

All of the above makes perfect sense to me and, no doubt, everyone else who reads it.

Those KW and Peterbilt cabs were effectively coachbuilt jobs, using aluminium instead of wood, aloominum being cheap in America. If you look at the Paccar website, they are boasting about their latest innovation- presswork. Yes, the new range of KW trucks has a pressed and welded cab, just like an LAD or an Ergo (some of it, at least. I bet there are rivets and a bit of fibreglass on it somewhere). Why did the US market prefer such a crude method of construction for so long? Even with the availability of properly-engineered cabs on Macks and others, they still held the KW and Peterbilt in higher regard.

Carryfast » Thu Apr 04, 2013 5:15 pm

We’re actually discussing the situation as it stood at the time when the ERGO was being designed and introduced to the market.In which case it was a simple choice between the ERGO or something much better based on US design.In which VALKYRIE seems to agree with my view of the situation and obviously AEC’s own engineers had they been left to get on with it.As opposed to most on here and Leyland’s management.

VALKYRIE replies:-
I do agree with Carryfast more or less,with mixed feelings:In terms of power,weight saving,and all round general design,the American heavy motor truck manufacturers were probably the world leaders in
commercial vehicles,followed very closely by the Scandinavian and European manufactures.And,although
British commercial vehicles makers produced generally good designs,many of their lorries lacked power,some
of the cabs left something to be desired in terms of comfort and,because,of politics,poor management and
lack of investment,at least some British manufacturers - especially British Leyland - fell behind the American,Scandinavian and European commercial vehicle manufacturers.

SOMEWHAT HARSH RIDE OF SOME AMERICAN COE HEAVY MOTOR TRUCKS.
Now back to the American heavy motor trucks:Because of the set forward steering axles on the cab over engine - COE - models (and short springs on some of them),these lorries have a somewhat harsh ride.I do remember the Editor of TRUCK,and Ace lorry tester,Pat Kennett,commenting on the somewhat rough ride
of a Mack F-Series COE Tractive Unit,complete with set forward steering axle. Why did American COE lorries
have set forward steering axles? - was it something to do with government regulations? At least some American COE heavy motor trucks built for export had normal mid-positioned steering axles.

CONSTRUCTION OF THE CABS OF AMERICAN HEAVY MOTOR TRUCKS.
In regard to the construction of American heavy motor truck cabs:-
From as early as the 1930s,most American heavy motor trucks had all steel welded and pressed steel cabs,such as Autocar,Diamond T,Ford,GMC,International.Kenworth,International,Kenworth,Mack,Peterbilt and White.Freightliner and White Freightliner had aluminium cabs which had aluminium frames.
Peterbilt lorries,such as the 352 COE model, have cabs of hand welded all aluminium construction,1 1/2" inch fiberglass insulation and embossed aluminium cab lining,and I would say contemporary Kenworth motor trucks had cabs of similar construction. So these cabs were in advance of the traditional coachbuilt cabs of
British lorries,as were the cabs of Scandinavian and European lorries.

LUXURY AND OTHER FEATURES OF PETERBILT COE AND CONVENTIONAL HEAVY MOTOR TRUCKS.
And here is a quote from a 1940s-1950s Peterbilt heavy motor truck advertisement:-
“The new all steel Peterbilt safety cab is wider and deeper than previous models,allowing plenty of leg room,
and allowing sear adjustments for tall and short drivers. A selection of adjustable bucket or full cushioned
seats is available.All are upholstered with the finest coil springs,covered with foam rubber and genuine hand-buffed Spanish leather.Quickly removable seat risers and floor boards are other features of accessibility.A
heavy duty insulated rubber mat adds to cab comfort.
Many specially designed accessories,such as defroster fan,heater,visor,spot light,fog lights,I.C.C. lights,etc,all especially adapted for Peterbilt heavy motor trucks,are available at extra cost.” Unquote.

Other Peterbilt advertisements mention drivers armrests,cigar lighters and,in later adverts,air conditioning! Oh,and the engine bonnets-hoods of the COE motor trucks were insulated against sound.
The first tilt cab Peterbilt was introduced in 1950.

AMERICAN-INSPIRED AMERICAN AEC 3VTG HEAVY LORRY PROJECT.
So,bearing all of the above in mind,coupled with the problems of the Ergomatic cab in regard to overheating
engines in AEC Ergomatics in tropical countries,it is no wonder that Dr. Albert D.Fogg,the General Manager of AEC,was the driving force of the AEC 3VTG Prototype-Experimental 3VTG6R9AE O90 Mk1 AEC 801-Series V8-engined 6x4 Tractive Unit,complete with the American-style Motor Panels-built cab. Albert Fogg knew that the Ergomatic cab was to blame for the overheating problems,and,according to him,it was also inadequate for long distance work and motorways…hence the AEC 3VTG of 1968,ala Peterbilt :-

But alas,the misguided British Leyland mismanagement very misguidedly and unwisely scrapped Albert Fogg’s
wise AEC 3VTG project!

It is also significant that the design of the Volvo F88 and F89 lorries was based on the Volvo Titan TIPTOP 4951/4956 models,the design of which was strongly influenced by American COE heavy motor trucks! :-
Volvo Titan TIPTOP 4951 4x2 Tractive Unit,AHW 191:-

Some of the American ancestors and contemparies of the Volvo F88/F89,AEC 3VTG:-
A magnificent and impressive Peterbilt 350 Bubblenose COE 6x4 Tractive Unit:-

Kenworth K100 COE,Detroit Diesel 8V-92 435 BHP diesel-engined,6x4 Tractive Unit:-

A magnificent and impressive Kenworth 523 Bullnose COE Flat-bodied 6x4 Drawbar Trailer Outfit:-

Autocar U Type 2nd Series COE 4x2 Tanker-Articulated Motor Truck,Atlantic,Autocar advertisement:-

Mack W-71 COE Tipper-bodied 6x4 Lorry:-

A very impressive and beautiful International RDFC-405 High Tower COE 6x4 Tractive Unit:-

White 7400 COE 6x2 Trailing Axle Tractive Unit:-

Peterbilt 362 COE Tipper-bodied 8x4 Drawbar Trailer Outfit -a real beaut! ,absolutely stunning! :-

If only British Leyland mismanagement had gone ahead with the wise Dr.Albert Fogg’s AEC 3VTG Lorry project,AEC,Leyland,Scammell,etc,might have still been with us,because it was probably the best way to successfully compete against American,European and Scandinavian lorry manufacturers in British and overseas markets Volvo also knew this - that was why they produced the American heavy motor truck-influenced Volvo F88/F89 heavy lorry range,which must have in turn influenced at least some other lorry manufacturers on this side of the Atlantic:Europe,Scandinavia and the United Kingdom

VALKYRIE

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, now what I know about V8 AECs can be written on the head of a pin, but I remember what a stormer the V8 Mandator operated by Chris Foster , (Fosters of Dudley), actually was. It was maintained , as was the entire fleet, by one of the best lorry mechanics that I have known, the late Johnny Yapp. And was resplendent in its red black and gold livery.

I do not know the exact modifications that he had carried out to the actual engine, but I remember him telling me that oil changes were at 3000miles max. They had very few reliability problems, and she ran alongside 760 Mandators on steel, and those of you who know the Black Country and South Wales know what hard territory it is for a lorry.

Just an aside for dear Carryfast, re petrol engines in artics…the REO cabover, (for slim drivers), I have just put the photograph back into the file, but was surprised to see the choke control sticking up on the plate that holds the gear lever mounting and the image clearly shows a inline petrol engine under the cab!!

Dennis, take heart, I could not spell the word either…but my spelling in any language is terrible,…but his posts are entertaining, are they not?

Do a full shift in either a contemporary KW, or any other US cabover, or an Ergo, we know which one would give you piles, and deafness earlier , and it would not be the cab produced in Wellington,(UK Carryfast, lest you imagine Leyland cabs came from NZ)

Cheerio for now.

1955 KW Bull nose on the rough which seems to be riding smooth enough even running solo and addition it seems to have been fitted with a suspension seat at some point which as I’ve said was available from at least the mid-late 1960’s certainly in Bostrom form and was an option fitted on many US trucks at least during the 1970’s.If you turn up the phones you’ll also find that the noise made by it’s small cam ■■■■■■■ which was available during the production run of the ERGO is not exactly going to make anyone deaf.

youtube.com/watch?v=adXl1fASYII

v

ERGO obviously less room and turn up the phones to the same level.

youtube.com/watch?v=U3p4niBtv48

While the Americans obviously knew how to make a tilt cab long before the mid 1960’s that wouldn’t take anyone’s head off.

youtube.com/watch?v=cqijs6oCBOM

[carryfast]

VALKYRIE:
If only British Leyland mismanagement had gone ahead with the wise Dr.Albert Fogg’s AEC 3VTG Lorry project,AEC,Leyland,Scammell,etc,might have still been with us,because it was probably the best way to successfully compete against American,European and Scandinavian lorry manufacturers in British and overseas markets Volvo also knew this - that was why they produced the American heavy motor truck-influenced Volvo F88/F89 heavy lorry range,which must have in turn influenced at least some other lorry manufacturers on this side of the Atlantic:Europe,Scandinavia and the United Kingdom

VALKYRIE

^ This.It’s good to know that I’ve got someone in as high places as Dr Fogg on my side.If only I could have been in on that fateful argument when it took place as to which direction AEC was going to go in. Although sadly,as I’ve said,I think Leyland management,s hands were tied by the austerity and over regulation which applied at the time in the uk domestic market.

[newmercman]

Geoffrey, you’re not going to get an argument out of me about the superiority of the American designs, but as they were not direct rivals for the Ergo cab in Britain, it’s not relevant to this topic, so in keeping with that, and that alone. How do you feel the Ergo stacked up against its peers, both at its inception and in its later years, you can bring the TM into the equation, but no mention can be made of anything from the colonies

[carryfast]

newmercman:
Geoffrey, you’re not going to get an argument out of me about the superiority of the American designs, but as they were not direct rivals for the Ergo cab in Britain, it’s not relevant to this topic, so in keeping with that, and that alone. How do you feel the Ergo stacked up against its peers, both at its inception and in its later years, you can bring the TM into the equation, but no mention can be made of anything from the colonies

From what I know of 1960’s Brit designs they were mostly basically compromised poverty spec zb of varying levels which were virtually obsolete when they were introduced let alone when they were kept in production and service way past their sell by date into the 1970’s.Especially considering the type of foreign competition which was about to be heading our way. In the case of Leyland Group products of that era as you’ve seen I think the Scammell Crusader was probably the best design of a bad bunch bearing in mind the need to produce the best possible product with the least possible development budget.Obviously the MOD agreed with me.

Ironically I did have some knowledge of some of the end of the line Mandators in the mid 1970’s which my employers built as fire trucks although I’d only just started with the firm in the factory as they were finished and gone out the door so I didn’t know a lot about them but I do remember them being seen as nothing special at all,if that,by all concerned.Unlike the TM.

[newmercman]

I owe meself a tenner now, never thought you’d manage it and without a link too, well done

[nz_jamie]

Carryfast mate,that video of the MM8 in NZ was taken by me and yep you are right for once she’s fairly loud. The reason for this is that it hasn’t got a muffler,nothing just a foot long pipe from the manifold.This is not intentional the pipe broke shortly before making the vid

So really you’ll need to find another Ergo to compare in cab noise. Don’t use the Leyland Octopus vid that I put up either as it too has a strait pipe off the turbo.

Nice try mate.

[gingerfold]

As usual the diversity of opinions being aired is governed by the relative experiences, or lack of experience, of working with Ergo cabbed vehicles. Hindsight again comes into play and we all have plenty of that.

Without a doubt, speaking as someone who was around in 1964 and was actually present at the Commercial Vehicle Motor Show of that year the launch of the Ergo cab was a ground breaking moment in the history and development of British Commercial vehicles. Hindsight and experience tells us that there were design flaws with the cab but they weren’t apparent at the time. CF says its was a failure from day one. What utter, utter rubbish. Over 30,000 British lorries with Ergo cabs were sold. Some failure eh?

Personal experience as a young driver in the late 1960s. I regularly drove a 1959 Leyland Super Comet, 294 NC, ex-BRS with Cravens Homalloy fibreglass panelled coach built cab. The driver’s seat was an abonimation that I soon replaced by a more comfortable ■■■■■■■■■■■ from a Seddon Mk2 cabbed lorry. About three times every day the engine cover would fall apart leaving the Leyland O.400 engine in full view and roaring its head off. Switching to an Ergo cabbed AEC Mercury I thought all my birthdays had come at on once. Sheer bliss compared with the Leyland. Personal experience of the Ergo cab as a driver and passenger compared with other contemporary cabs, again as a driver and passenger, then the Ergo cab wins hands down.

Again we have become side-tracked by the relative merits, or otherwise, of American designs. Some contributors seem unable to grasp the concept that British designers were forced to work within the constraints of Construction and Use Regulations that decreed vehicle weights and dimensions. C & U Regs were framed by Parliament, or in other words, politicians, all of whom had no idea what they were discussing or debating. So they were guided by the trade organisations such as the SMMT, who in turn were advised by representatives of member companies, But opposing these were powerful lobbying groups protecting vested interests who opposed changes. Sadly the British road transport industry has never had a powerful enough lobbying presence, when compared with such as the railways. Going back to the 1933 Road Traffic Act, this was framed to protect the interests of the railways and its effects were still influencing the 1964 C & U regs thirty years later. Throw into the mix the nationalisation and later de-nationalisation of road transport then the whole thing was lacking a firm direction and policy with rergards to vehicle design and development.

Domestic manufacturers had relied too heavily on home and commonwealth markets and had been too insular with its ideas. Good as it was in 1965, such was the pace of advancement elsewhwhere in the rest of the world then the Ergo cab was outdated very quickly. But it was a huge step forward in 1965.

[kr79]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
NZ Jamie how very dare you try to explain the road conditions of NZ and the buying habits of NZ hauliers , you only live there for God sake .You might well have spoken to old drivers who actually drove the vehicles this thread posed the question about but the answers were all wrong that they gave you.The British vehicles were rubbish those old drivers were either backward thinking or just plain stupid because everyone knows they should have been driving conventional yank motors at the time irrespective of the narrow roads they were driving on.

So Stokes was right after all the ERGO was the way to go and from that point on no American based trucks both conventional and cab over were ever sold in NZ at the time or since and Leyland trucks still have the market share in that market to prove it.While the American manufacturers can only look on thinking what might have been there if only it had been them that had made the ERGO instead of Leyland Group.

Stokes was a man with a vendetta (is that how you spell it Chris) and a motive to close AEC as soon as possible.Instead he chose a slow cruel death by strangling the life out of it .I dont think AEC were ever going to produce the yank looking cab, it was a mock up to test the Marathon .Ive read reports from 1 of the test drivers from Southall who regularily drove it at 40 tons along the M4 in the early 70s .He gave it a glowing report with storming performance but lack of investment meant the cab (ergo marathon) or the rest of the vehicle never fulfilled its potential,just like the V8 which by this time was ready for relaunch but blocked and much the same could be said of the later turbo AV505 which never saw the light of day

It’s resonable for even Stevie Wonder to assume that the ‘yank cab’ had no connection whatsoever to either the ERGO or what ‘eventually’ became the Marathon.It’s obviously based on a cab over Pete.

It’s also resonable to assume that AEC’s engineers actually preferred to use that design to the ERGO or what eventually actually became the Marathon or they wouldn’t have bothered with all the trouble of making it.

It’s also reaonable to assume that there would have been a ( big ) ‘argument’ between those AEC engineers and Leyland’s management when they were ordered to get rid of the idea in favour of keeping the ERGO and introducing the Marathon.Which just leaves the question are you and kr and zb etc etc saying that keeping the ERGO and introducing the Marathon as it actually was in that case rather than going for the 3VGT design was the correct decision or not . If so where’s the big difference between that idea and what Stokes actually did.

The difference is that,contrary to your view concerning any so called bs ‘vendetta’,Stokes would probably have actually been in agreement with those AEC engineers as to which was the best option but his hands were tied by those above him (bean counters ) and the constraints imposed by the British domestic market conditions.Which just leaves the question as to why AEC’s management didn’t stick to their guns as Scammell’s obviously did in their dealings with Leyland’s management.

As I’ve said we can see AEC which was a strong engenering led company had the right idea in what way heavy trucks were going in to the 70s and 80s but they was obviously stifled by the parent company in Lancashire scammel always seemed to have a lot more indipendence than any other company in the leyland group presumably as there products seemed to cater for more specialist markets where as leyland and AEC were both seen as premium general haulage lorrys.
The story’s here of they knew the tooling was wrong but pressed ahead so to speak shows the complacency and arrogance already in place. It’s similar to ford with the pinto car range they decided it was cheaper to pay compensation to the family’s of people killed when the fuel tank exploded in accidents than change the tooling,
The ergo cab was way ahead of its competitors at launch but not 15 years later.
You have to compare it with its peers.
It’s like comparing a ford focus with a ford mustang and saying ones better. They may both be a car that gets you from a to b but designed for very different needs and wants.

[zb_anorak]

All this talk of “flawed design” is a bit woolly. What was the problem with the floorpan? If they managed to build the things for 17 years, it must have fitted the rest of the panels. Does anyone know what dimension or feature did not turn out as intended, and what was done to overcome the problem?

Regarding the 1968 AEC prototype mentioned earlier: this was, as I understand it, simply a development chassis to test various ideas; it was not intended to be developed to the manufacturing stage. Can those people who would have wanted to see it in production explain what they think it would have offered, that the actual production vehicle- the Marathon-did not. I suspect that they just like the styling, and assume that the things that look nice to them must be superior to other things.

[kr79]

It looks like a peterblt you could get a few confederate flag stickers and pretend you were running to Texas not hull. Ditch the hobnail boots and flat cap for cowboy boots and a Stetson whats not to like.

[tiptop495]

Hey to everyone, Wasn’t the ergo not built for the britain market and the US cabovers for the US.
I think the US cabovers were over here not the most loved ( i speak out of Belgium and think for much of the European markets, a big cab yes but with no space,hard suspension not the say nothing,much less comfort,long turning circles,difficult to find parts whereas all were US designed,almost no dealers and so on. Only Mack could set through mostly on earthworks,and it was a beast to drive too even the long distance models.
The Yank was only for the fanatic over here. Most were only double drive ( not Mack )so expencive to maintain
Yes the Volvo was originally designed for the US,but was here accepted. because of reliability power,driving comfort and gearshifting.
But from cab design, I find the DAF’s 2600 (jukebox) had a much better look for Europe.It could have been a number one top selling truck if it had been equiped with a stronger and better engine as the P680 but with a ■■■■■■■■■■■ with lower fuel consumption for our standards. And a tipping cab.
But everyone his own preference,it’s only my opinion here.So you can discuss here for ever.
Cheers Eric,

[zb_anorak]

Those who think 1970s US truck design was so far ahead of the European norm, watch this:

1979 Kenworth K100 Aerodyne Restoration #1

The cab is an assembly of multiple small extrusions, brackets and sheets. This is in contrast to normal automotive practice, in which large, deep-drawn, heavily-featured pressings have their own individual rigidity. Fewer joints save cost and reduce the build-up of fit tolerances. The KW restorer, who has done a superb job, spends much of the video pointing out design flaws in the original cab structure. One is tempted to ask, without the corrosion problems of steel, why it needed a three-year restoration in the first place. The answer is pretty clear from the narrative- apart from the thing lacking strength and rigidity overall, the proliferation of joints and attachment methods had begun to fail under cyclic loading, causing the cab to sag and collapse.

Apart from the length of the cab, plus the extended roof, the KW offers no functional advantage over that on a Marathon. In fact, the engine tunnel is considerably more intrusive to the interior. An American truck, built to suit European length regulations, would have less useable cab space than the Leyland. If we are to speculate that European legislation should have allowed larger cabs in the 1970s, then we must assume that the manufacturing and structural advantages of European monocoque design would have made them to a superior standard than those from across the water.

[kr79]

Slightly off topic but I’ve just downloaded a book to my kindle called British leyland chronicle of a car crash.
It focuses on the car side of things but still lots of insight in to failings there and it seems pretty impartial. Was only £3.80 on kindle and is avalible in paperback too